• 4 UK Christians take discrimination case to European court
    93 replies, posted
[t]http://imgkk.com/i/i3t2.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438[/url] [quote=BBC News]Four British Christians who claim they lost their jobs as a result of discrimination against their beliefs are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights later. They include an airline worker stopped from wearing a cross and a counsellor who refused to deal with gay couples. All four lost separate employment tribunals relating to their beliefs. The BBC's Robert Pigott says the result will mark a "watershed moment" in social change to Christian beliefs. The cases involve British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lilian Ladele: [B]• Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross • Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons • Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people • Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London[/B] 'Too narrow' Earlier this year, the four were backed by the UK's equality watchdog, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which said judges had interpreted equality laws "too narrowly" in religious claims. It said this had led employers to place undue restriction on how far Christians could behave in accordance with their beliefs. In Mrs Chapman's case, the NHS trust said the necklace her cross was on had breached health and safety guidelines. She lost her discrimination case in 2010. Meanwhile, Miss Eweida, who was suspended by British Airways for breaching its uniform code, also lost her case against discrimination in 2010. In the same year, Mr McFarlane, a Christian marriage guidance counsellor from Bristol, lost his court bid to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals. And, also in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled against Ms Ladele, who was disciplined by Islington Council for refusing to conduct same-sex civil partnerships. The court refused her bid to challenge an appeal tribunal which overturned a previous decision by an employment tribunal that the council had discriminated against her.[/quote]
It's silly to call this 'discrimination against belief', when they were essentially refusing to perform their job or follow dress code purely on the basis of their religion. How did they not know what the expectations would be before signing on to their jobs?
People may argue about the necklace ones, but the other two were clearly not doing their job properly because of intolerance and deserved to be fired
[quote] • Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross • Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons[/quote] I can sort of understand these two, assuming people were allowed to wear non-cross necklaces they shouldn't have to take theirs off.
[QUOTE=smurfy;37532520]People may argue about the necklace ones, but the other two were clearly not doing their job properly because of intolerance and deserved to be fired[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure there isn't anything in the bible saying they have to wear religious symbols at all times. It can't be counted as religious persecution if what they're trying to do isn't a part of their religion.
If they are allowed to wear non-Christian symbols they should be allowed to wear Christian symbols.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532619]If they are allowed to wear non-Christian symbols they should be allowed to wear Christian symbols.[/QUOTE] The employer can say what they can and can't wear. Also, religious symbols have connotations. You wouldn't expect people to be allowed to wear swastikas to work, would you?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532619]If they are allowed to wear non-Christian symbols they should be allowed to wear Christian symbols.[/QUOTE] It was likely a rule against religious imagery (a star of David, Christian cross, maybe a Muslim crescent, etc). But, crosses seem to be the most common form of this.
Wow, such connotations of love and shit big deal Some people seem to have this idea that if we have a legal way to shit on Christians we should do it and I don't think that's the right thing to do.
first 2 i can see why they are pissed off, getting fired over a necklace is pretty shitty but then again in the case of the first 1 she was a flight attendant i'm guessing? so she probably had a dress code she had to adhere to, the second one though i don't see why a nurse can't wear a cross necklace. the other 2 though they are just assholes deserved to be fired
The founder of dating site eHarmony said that he wouldn't let gays use the site because it used a very in-depth psychological profile to find the best match, and things get all screwed up when you depart from traditional man-woman relationships. He was also notably a Christian. I don't know if that's bullshit or not (it probably is) but he eventually released a similar gay/lesbian site called "Compatible Partners".
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532653]Wow, such connotations of love and shit big deal Some people seem to have this idea that if we have a legal way to shit on Christians we should do it and I don't think that's the right thing to do.[/QUOTE] What about homophobia? Anyway, if the company thinks that might make their customers uncomfortable, and it doesn't contradict their religion, then they have every right to have their employees not wear them. Employees represent their company after all.
A picture of Christ no more invokes homophobic than a picture of blonde people invokes Aryan pride. Anyone who seriously gets offended at the wearing of a cross representing a man who gave his life to save us (according to the story) is a complete fucking twat. New Testament is not Old Testament.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532859]A picture of Christ no more invokes homophobic than a picture of blonde people invokes Aryan pride. Anyone who seriously gets offended at the wearing of a cross representing a man who gave his life to save us (according to the story) is a complete fucking twat. New Testament is not Old Testament.[/QUOTE] wait are you suggesting that getting offended by the old testament is okay while getting offended at the new testament is stupid because the new testament is squeaky clean? you should go read the new testament so you can see how wrong you are
I'm sure there's some shit on evilbible.com. but as a whole Jesus's record is pretty squeaky clean.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532653]Wow, such connotations of love and shit big deal Some people seem to have this idea that if we have a legal way to shit on Christians we should do it and I don't think that's the right thing to do.[/QUOTE] I hardly think you can look at this as some legal way to 'shit on Christians', as you put it.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532859]A picture of Christ no more invokes homophobic than a picture of blonde people invokes Aryan pride. Anyone who seriously gets offended at the wearing of a cross representing a man who gave his life to save us (according to the story) is a complete fucking twat. New Testament is not Old Testament.[/QUOTE] What the stories say doesn't matter, people's perception of it does. I bet all of the innocents killed in the crusades were glad to have been killed by people serving such a savior. Hell, this isn't even about what people actually perceive, it's about what the company thinks they will. If they don't want to take the chance that they will lose money because of some nut getting offended, they shouldn't have to.
And I don't think that a Christian should have to hide their beliefs. I don't know that I can eloquently defend the crosses for net benefit to the company, as its late at night now, but whatever the case is, I wish they could have the right.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532902]I'm sure there's some shit on evilbible.com. but as a whole Jesus's record is pretty squeaky clean.[/QUOTE] this is like saying the plot synopsis of the Odyssey is "guy gets lost but goes home anyway" i'm pretty sure you're just bullshiting me (and possibly yourself) by just assuming jesus' "record" is "pretty" squeaky clean i mean he says to lepers that they should basically pray themselves to health and if they die they just didn't pray hard enough, which is like one random example i came up with that's from the gospel of luke not to mention jews didn't come up with the concept of hell, that's a new testament idea. in the old testament at least when you're dead you're dead, then jesus comes along and tells you you get suffer a lot more after your death. not to mention all of his "miracles" and virginal birth is pretty offensive to me as a person who thinks humans shouldn't be dumb
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532962]And I don't think that a Christian should have to hide their beliefs. I don't know that I can eloquently defend the crosses for net benefit to the company, as its late at night now, but whatever the case is, I wish they could have the right.[/QUOTE] If dress code requires you not to wear baseball caps or red jeans into work, and that's fine, I think you can stomach not being able to wear a cross necklace.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37532986]If dress code requires you not to wear baseball caps or red jeans into work, and that's fine, I think you can stomach not being able to wear a cross necklace.[/QUOTE] Well there is a pretty big difference between a baseball cap and a holy symbol.
Maybe I was wrong, maybe this is like Westboro Baptist Church. I can't find a legal reason to force them not protest at funerals, but they're gigantic tremendous cunts. At the same time, if you're going to be a dick and complain about a cross necklace, I can't find a legal reason to force that to occur... but you're a dick just the same.
[QUOTE=mac338;37533010]Well there is a pretty big difference between a baseball cap and a holy symbol.[/QUOTE] It is, but why should I (or in this case, the employer) be expected to lend a religious symbol devoid of any concrete necessity any more respect than say, a hat that keeps you slightly cooler?
I don't know, this goes back to do you want to be a dick (albeit a legally sound dick) and shit on someone's beliefs.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532962]And I don't think that a Christian should have to hide their beliefs. I don't know that I can eloquently defend the crosses for net benefit to the company, as its late at night now, but whatever the case is, I wish they could have the right.[/QUOTE] They don't. They can walk up and down Times Square carrying a massive cross and no one would care. But not while they're working. While you're working, you agree to give up some specific freedoms temporarily in exchange for money. Free speech is restricted by this, I'm sure someone who proselytized while bagging groceries would get fired pretty quick. This case is maybe a little less reasonable, but if an employee doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, what can you do?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37533063]I don't know, this goes back to do you want to be a dick (albeit a legally sound dick) and shit on someone's beliefs.[/QUOTE] Again, how is it shitting on someone's beliefs to ask that they not wear religious jewelry at work?
[QUOTE=Megafan;37533024]It is, but why should I (or in this case, the employer) be expected to lend a religious symbol devoid of any concrete necessity any more respect than say, a hat that keeps you slightly cooler?[/QUOTE] Because it might be seen as a necessity by the wearer, a cap will not. If I was the employer I'd just ask her to hide the cross under her shirt, at worst.
[QUOTE]• Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross[/QUOTE] This pisses me of, one of the arguments she used against them was that other religions could wear things like bangles, the thing is, those bangles are religious, it is part of their dress code, she isn't told by her holy book to year a cross, its just an accessory
[QUOTE=mac338;37533100]Because it might be seen as a necessity by the wearer, a cap will not. If I was the employer I'd just ask her to hide the cross under her shirt, at worst.[/QUOTE] Well, that's why the wearer's opinion of what is necessary clothing/jewelry generally isn't taken into account when considering what a dress code violation is.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37532707]first 2 i can see why they are pissed off, getting fired over a necklace is pretty shitty but then again in the case of the first 1 she was a flight attendant i'm guessing? so she probably had a dress code she had to adhere to, the second one though i don't see why a nurse can't wear a cross necklace. the other 2 though they are just assholes deserved to be fired[/QUOTE] I think for the nurse one it's the same reasoning as why Doctors don't wear ties any more: Because when they're leaning over a patient, it could get on wounds and spread infections or something. Notice how it says she was moved to a desk job, not fired. They just didn't want her to make things worse for patients by wearing a necklace.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.